Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Dec 22, 2012 4:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Non-Dead - Hard to believe

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/21/11-1857.pdf

Can a male employer terminate a female employee because the
employer’s wife, due to no fault of the employee, is concerned about the nature of the relationship between the employer and the employee? This is the question we are required to answer today. For the reasons stated herein, we ultimately conclude the conduct does not amount to unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

Yowsa...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: TOOTMO Date: Dec 22, 2012 5:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead - Hard to believe

You're a lawyer, aren't you?

Are you saying that the case was wrongly affirmed?


Kindly,
Judge TOOTMO

This post was modified by TOOTMO on 2012-12-23 01:14:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Dec 22, 2012 6:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead - Hard to believe

Well, I don't practice in Iowa, but I find it incredible that the court states that the decision to terminate was not based on her gender. This is the distinction they try to draw, which I don't think passes the "laugh test":

Nelson’s arguments warrant serious consideration, but we ultimately think a distinction exists between (1) an isolated employment decision based on personal relations (assuming no coercion or quid pro quo), even if the relations would not have existed if the employee had been of the opposite gender, and (2) a decision based on gender itself. In the former case, the decision is driven entirely by individual feelings and emotions regarding a specific person. Such a decision is not gender- based, nor is it based on factors that might be a proxy for gender.

YET, he fired her because his wife wanted her fired because she found her a threat to their marriage. Would that have happened had she been a he? He also told her husband that he was afraid he would try and have an affair with her. If anything, there seems to be some sexual harassment involved (telling her that if she saw a bulge in his pants that meant that her clothes were too tight), but for whatever reason, a claim for sexual harassment was not part of the case. Not knowing all the facts, it just seems like this case will now allow Iowa employers to hide behind discminatory reasons for terminating by just saying, "Oh, I found her/him too sexy for my comfort, so I had to let her/him go." Seems crazy to me, but I don't have all the facts. Interesting to speculate if this would be an unanimous decision if there had been a woman on the court.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DeadRed1971 Date: Dec 22, 2012 4:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead - Hard to believe

Never trust a woman who wears her pants too tight

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: user unknown Date: Dec 22, 2012 6:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead - Hard to believe

It seems that since the employer had, on several occasions, told the employee that her mode of dress was distracting; and since she had not modified her mode of dress, that she could be terminated legally. However, the nature of some of the employer's comments borders on sexual harassment. If the employee had filled over the comments, rather than waiting until she was terminated; the outcome of the suit may have been different.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicharIie Date: Dec 22, 2012 6:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead - Hard to believe

say the employee was wearing a top that purposely highlighted her breasts? That IS distracting for a normal male and imo, is not sexual discrimination. In fact I think the female employee is sexually harrasing the man with her half exposed breasts.

It also depends on what he told her and how he said it.

1 - could you please dress more modestly, your attire is too distracting

2 - oh wow! what a rack! I can't do my job with you showing it off!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Dec 22, 2012 6:51pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead - Hard to believe

BUT, what doesn't come through in the opinion, is that she claims that she always wore medical scrubs. And he employed her for a dozen years? Still seems crazy - but I agree with you, as stated above, re the comments.

And I've been on both sides of these types of case, and it seems the worse cases always happen in the medical profession. The god complex? (attorneys know, deep down, we're not as smart).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ColdRain108 Date: Dec 22, 2012 10:04pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead - Hard to believe

isn't this the same part of the country (Missouri/Ohio) where politicians get their information regarding womens sexual behaviors from porno movies - ie Non-legitimate rape?

"She was obviously enjoying it in that video I was watching on the internet last night".

and then these same losers are the ones who, in order to lessen their feelings of being perv's, try to say all men are like that. FUCK OFF!

The same idiots that cost the Rep's the election.

Dudes, turn off the porno movies and get in touch with reality.

Real men don't fall all over themselves for a bimbo, especially if they are married. Losers. Knuckle dragging apes. BTW I have worked in an environment side by side with women my entire working career, both as my supervisors and as my subordinates, and never, ever have I been tempted to cheat on my wife of 22 years, that would make me a complete asswipe scumbag if I did. No fear of eternal damnation makes me feel this way, its just common sense non-douchebaggery. The big head runs the show, not the taliban head.

More of the hearts and minds that need serious changing.





This post was modified by Little Sense on 2012-12-23 06:04:35